California Dem Proposes Law Targeting Global Warming Skeptics

A California lawmaker wants to change a law to make it easier for state prosecutors to go after companies skeptical of global warming. The proposed bill would punish skeptical companies for “many years of public deception” with regards to global warming science.

“I want to give law enforcement the tools they need to hold people accountable for their actions if that’s where the evidence takes them,” Democratic state Sen. Ben Allen, who proposed legislation targeting skeptics, recently told InsideClimate News.

“Given the environmental, health, and economic impacts that Californians are already paying for as a result of the fossil fuel industry’s many years of public deception and their efforts to block action on climate change, it is important to hold the industry responsible,” Allen’s office wrote in the bill’s summary.

The legislation is part of a larger effort by Democrats and environmentalists to draw parallels between oil companies and the tobacco industry as state attorneys general investigate Exxon’s disclosures about global warming’s risks to shareholders.

California’s attorney general is already investigating Exxon for allegedly misleading shareholders about the risks the company faces from global warming. New York, Massachusetts and the U.S. Virgin Islands have also launched investigations into Exxon’s global warming stance.

“Keeping the statute limited to only four years undermines the state’s ability to hold fossil fuel companies responsible for their unfair and deceptive practices that extend back well beyond four years, as well as the damages and risks that Californians and everyone else must face for centuries to come,” according to Allen’s office.

AG investigations into Exxon, and Allen’s bill, were inspired by reports from InsideClimate News and Columbia University claiming the company knew of the risks of global warming for decades, but funded groups skeptical of warming and opposed regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

GESchroeder

Depending on how this law is written, it can be a very good thing. The global warming fraudsters could be charged under their own law for their “many years of public deception with regards to global warming science.”

Amber

GESchroeder Good point . I think they know it too and that is why we are seeing the latest propaganda to deflect attention away from themselves . Getting some scary global warming believers on side like AG’s makes it less likely they will turn their attention on the puppet masters of one of the biggest scams in history . Demonize the dirty fuel users , those greedy corporations , those deniers and bully scientists who won’t drink the cool aid . It is all becoming an all to familiar pattern .

The jig is up on the crisis that wasn’t and the proof is the lawyers have entered the room .

GR82DRV

[quote name=”GESchroeder”]Depending on how this law is written, it can be a very good thing. The global warming fraudsters could be charged under their own law for their “many years of public deception with regards to global warming science.”[/quote]That’s a nice dream, but you’re making a big assumption… that is even if this law [u]is[/u] written “properly” that it would be then [b]enforced[/b] and [b]adjudicated[/b] fairly.

If we’ve learned anything lately it’s that the left views the judiciary as a tool for what they cannot achieve through otherwise legitimate means. We [u]assume[/u] the Constitution will be honored and that judges will interpret law justly rather than inventing it outright.

Assume at your own risk.

Windy 2

I read the Exxon study for myself and it pretty much mirrored the uncertainty and non-consensus of the science community at the time it was written. Activists are trying to suggest that Exxon was guilty of the same misinformation campaign as the tobacco industry but such a narrative is misleading. There was a large number of independent climate researchers who did not find CO2 to be a climate threat unlike the independent science community that studied tobacco health threats. There was NO CONSENSUS on the dangers of CO2 at the time as many scientists in the 1970s were predicting a cooling. While Exxon acknowledged that CO2 caused warming there was no consensus on the dangers and no clear consensus to recommend to the BOD at the time.

I’m not sure the AGs will prevail in the face of actual evidence taken from the scientific reports generated by Exxon scientists at the time. There is no smoking gun with regard to Exxon falsifying the science. The uncertainties were still very high and interpretation difficult. Determining guilt using hindsight that is 20/20 is not the same as determining guilt based on non-consensus scientific knowledge 30 years ago.

Windy 2

The Yale Climate Project took a very strong stance against using intimidation and fear tactics in climate communication to the public. Yale found though several studies that such efforts would likely backfire and damage efforts to gain public support for climate action. While politicians and AGs see the potential in pursuing the a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow, the public perception may be an entirely different matter that could hit them in the pocketbook and create a potential backlash against the government. The idea of prosecuting “deniers” is is a very risky move and one that may not play out as intended.

GR82DRV

[quote name=”Windy 2″] Determining guilt using hindsight that is 20/20 is not the same as determining guilt based on non-consensus scientific knowledge 30 years ago.[/quote]Windy, I mostly agree with your take but I still don’t accept the central premise that science itself can be based on consensus. The late Dr.Michael Chrichton summed this up quite nicely:

[i]“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”[/i]

Amber

196toZero

Hi Sceptics,I am baaaaaaaack. Just more heat records to warm your hearts. I expect One Trick to be by shortly with a graph of US continental temps to dispute GLOBAL records and JayPee to tell us again about how the moon’s albedo is responsible for its temperature (snicker).

“The global average temperature anomaly was 1.35ºC above the 1951–80 average and 1.21ºC above the entire twentieth-century average. For temperatures over land, the deviation almost doubles to a whopping 2.31ºC above the twentieth-century average. Other records broken by February 2016 include the fact that it was the tenth consecutive month in which the global average monthly record was broken and that it completed the hottest three-month period on record (December 2015 to February 2016).”

196toZero

Yes, yes JayPee,I lie with references and citations and you tell the truth with what exactly?

Still waiting for a shred of proof about this no greenhouse gas theory of yours (double snicker). BTW, have you noticed Roy Spencer had to close down the comments on his blog because of another no-greenhouse gas lunatic, Doug Cotten, continually fouled the place up?

Amber

Thanks 196to zero for informing us it is getting warmer . And your point ? Let’s hope it continues . When the trend reverses as it historically has plants, animals and sea creatures will have a much more difficult time . Humans will adapt and evolve as we always have . A warming world means less fossil fuel use ,greater plant growth and more ocean for fish . Do you have a problem with that ? Perhaps you believe there are just too many humans and a warming world isn’t good because it likely means even more humans . Considering Antarctica is larger than the entire USA with a full time population of about 5000 people it serves as a real example of peoples preferences . Polar Bears don’t even want to live there.

Natural variables continue to shape climate change and while everything humans do has some impact we don’t drive the bus. We are especially not going to tweak the earth’s temperature to our liking. The arbitrary 2 degree limit is utternonsense . We need to focus on reducing energy use of all kinds , clean up our oceans and waterways , and protect the other species of plants and animals . But we also need to move past the alarmism and ulterior motives of promoters of the pretend global warming crisis . It is an overblown scam .

…None of which has anything to do with the so-called [u]scientific[/u] opinions they have grant-purchased using trillions of taxpayer dollars.

So Drewski, let’s just cut to the chase. Let’s have a little honesty instead of hiding behind the false premise of “consensus science”, and compare and contrast your Utopian Socialist Paradise (and the history of world Socialism) verses free market Constitutionalism.

196-to-0

Ralph,We have had El Nino’s before but now the baseline keeps rising thus records get broken.

GR82DRV,“Consensus science” is arrived at by evidence convincing a majority (in climate science that would be a VAST majority) of scientists that the OBSERVATIONS and TRENDS we are witnessing point to a reality which should humanity should not ignore.

And “cutting to the chase”, bringing “my” Utopian Socialist Paradise and free market Constitutionalism into the conversation is just goofy nonsense.

196-to-0

GR82DRV

[quote name=”196-to-0″]Ralph,We have had El Nino’s before but now the baseline keeps rising thus records get broken.

GR82DRV,“Consensus science” is arrived at by evidence convincing a majority (in climate science that would be a VAST majority) of scientists that the OBSERVATIONS and TRENDS we are witnessing point to a reality which should humanity should not ignore.[/quote]Sorry, [b]that’s[/b] not science.

[b]It isn’t science[/b] if it’s declared settled rather than being open to question or new data. [b]It isn’t science[/b] when government funds only [u]one[/u] side of the debate. [b]It isn’t science[/b] when emails circulate among climate science discussing how to “hide the decline” in temperature, as happened in the 2009 Climategate scandal at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.[b]It isn’t science[/b] when progressive politicians want to strip academics of their teaching positions because they question the validity of or hold opposing views on climate change.[b]It isn’t science[/b] when Al Gore and his gang of political zealots want to deny the First Amendment rights of free speech to skeptics in industry by threatening punishment for voicing alternative opinions.[b]It isn’t science[/b] when the climate change orthodoxy calls reasonable people who reject the climate change catastrophe scenario “climate change deniers”, trying to invoke the same disgust deserved by Holocaust deniers.[b]It isn’t science[/b] if their hypothesis is [u]non-falsifiable[/u] – that is, if the hypothesis is never rejected, but constantly modified in an attempt to accommodate the data.

Congratulations. This is what your politically motivated fellow travelers have done to advance the cause of science…

amirlach

:zzz “For all those Zero’s that want to claim 2015/2016 “proves” that human caused global warming is at work (while at the same time ignoring a record El Niño event as seen above), this graph indisputably proves that the El Niño is the driver of record high temperatures, not carbon dioxide.”[img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/el-nino-12-14-15-current.gif[/img]

196-to-0

One Trick,No one has ignored the current El Nino but sCeptics like to ignore the rising baseline temps that precede these El Nino’s . Have you asked yourself why this El Nino has temps so much higher than 97/98 or why that one was hotter than the one before? Of course not, that would require logical thinking.

BTW, I am part of the 196. Zero represents the number of countries that rejected the latest international climate agreement and also represents the number of scientific papers JayPee has to support his no greenhouse gas argument.

GR82DRV,It isn’t science if it’s declared settled rather than being open to question or new data. >What new data?

It isn’t science when government funds only one side of the debate. >There are no “sides” to science, only evidence – got any?

It isn’t science when emails circulate among climate science discussing how to “hide the decline” in temperature, as happened in the 2009 Climategate scandal at East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.>OMG! They should have an investigation! Oh, that’s right they did and multiple times at that. Result? No scientific malfeasance.

It isn’t science when progressive politicians want to strip academics of their teaching positions because they question the validity of or hold opposing views on climate change.>Again – evidence?

It isn’t science when Al Gore and his gang of political zealots want to deny the First Amendment rights of free speech to skeptics in industry by threatening punishment for voicing alternative opinions.>You make me ask again – where is your evidence?

It isn’t science if their hypothesis is non-falsifiable – that is, if the hypothesis is never rejected, but constantly modified in an attempt to accommodate the data.>Global warming theory is the same as it ever was, new data has only bolstered the theory as evidenced by the recent 196-to-Zero result of COP21.

Congratulations. This is what your politically motivated fellow travelers have done to advance the cause of science…>Yet more illogical sCeptic ramblings.

GR82DRV

Drew. arguing with you is like arguing with a 5-year old… Absolutely juvenile.

You constantly ask for “evidence” that is right before your nose and being repeated over and over, yet all you can come up with is, “So where’s your evidence”.

Evidence is critical for someone making an [u]intellectual[/u] argument. Evidence is irrelevant for someone trying to perpetrate a political fraud.

As a person who makes his living in the natural sciences (medicine), evidence and respect for the scientific process, [u]including skeptical review[/u] is sacred. Endorsement of tyrants like Al Gore and other leftist fraudsters who seek to deny free speech is shameful. But as you so clearly prove, leftist political idealism trumps shame.

196-to-Zero

It is called EVIDENCE. And I have decades of it in the form of studies, observations, links and citations. PLUS, I have position papers from ALL of the world’s earth, space and atmospheric science organizations and ALL of the world’s peak national science organizations and ALL of America’s military and intelligence agencies.

I know it doesn’t compare to the intellectual heights of the expert gamblers, neck doctors and fake lawyers that write for CCD but it sustains me.

BTW, do you ever plan to post any EVIDENCE in support of your no-greenhouse gas theory (chuckle)?

Get a daily digest of the day’s headlines

Recent Comments

Amber

One of the most significant outcomes of the USA election is the public awakening to the utter contempt main street media holds them . Preachy condescending Liberals
pushing for the most part Democrat ideology while shutting out different values and political priorities . Telling the people what to think instead of listening . The Green Party garnering a whopping 1 % of the vote and was supposed to be the champion of what the President claims is the number one threat to the world . Global Warming rebranded Climate Change . Apparently people in the rust belt and over 30 other States disagreed with that as a priority .
The lazy media played along and sold scary climate stories they were spoon fed and in some cases refused to provide any balance to the BS they are spoon fed and have been spewing for years .
When their party lost they were so stunned all they could play was the race card and are still in denial holding out for hopeless recounts or conspiracy theories of Russian espionage and hacking .
The public has now been put back in control so if some clown weather women wants to pitch nonsense the public shifts to more objective information sources. Ones that aren’t the propaganda or fake news tool for a political party .
Universities that are now full on incubators for a one sided left wing agenda are really ripping those kids off but worst of all those like Colorado University have faculty openly saying they will not discuss opposing climate views . Education to Propaganda is a fine line . Colorado crossed it . The LA times crossed it . The Guardian , New York Times …. well what do you expect ?
Peoples actions demonstrated the jig is up . Short those media stocks they are going down .

Amber

If left wing pinko Saunders doesn’t like him he sounds like he has potential .
He looks like a guy with a bit of backbone and won’t be bullied by the Demo rat
whiners who have infiltrated the EPA .
Good luck Mr. Pruitt . …. hire security . When the looney tunes get desperate( and they are ) they go into ugly mode . Taking apart their $Trillion dollar con game is going to get them down right belligerent but who cares ? They did get about 1 % of the vote
after all . In other words the science fiction is settled in the minds of voters by about
99 % . The debate is over in their hot air world .
Drain away Mr. Pruitt the public backs you despite the shrill sound of whiners who just had their piggy bank broken .

Amber

The NASA data manipulators collectively don’t have an IQ over 38 . Bullshit merchants about to be out on their ass . Maybe Britain would like to hire NASA rejects .
Where oh where are Dicaprio and Gore going to get their alarmist propaganda ?
When is the much vaunted IPCC report coming out ? That’s right NEVER .
The jig is up they were played as useful idiots and are no longer required .
Did the IPCC hot pants smut writer ever beat those sexual harassment allegations ? Quality right through the organization .

Amber

Why would virtually no change to Antarctic ice in over 100 years be a surprise at all .
Whether it’s minus – 60 or minus – 58 certainly we know it is fricking cold and it is not about to thaw . Throw a few volcanos open below the surface and a part of it might
but if that is considered caused by climate change the science fiction is bigger than
we know .
The question is how much will the Antarctic grow by over the next 1000 years ?

Amirlach

JayPee

I’m willing to consider your argument, but I’m disturbed of your willing to give credence to the unproven and unfoundedly assumed presumption that CO2, CH4, and any other gasses that the extremist left hates are upon their dictum alone the mythical GREENHOUSE GASSES as they define them to be.

I ask you not to buy into their argument without the proof that they have never had.
They have always had conjecture, lies and hysteria and even a low percentage of consensus ( as if that means anything ).
But they have NEVER had proof of their mythical GREENHOUSE EFFECT ( as defined by the extremist left ).